search this blog

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Eastern Scythians = Steppe_MLBA + East Eurasians

OK, I said I wasn't going to make any bold statements in regards to this issue until we see more ancient genomes from Central Asia, but I'm pretty sure now that the steppe ancestry in the eastern Scythians from Unterländer et al. is mostly of the Steppe Middle Late Bronze Age (Steppe_MLBA) kind, rather than the Steppe Early Middle Bronze Age (Steppe_EMBA) kind.
For background info, refer to the discussion in the comments here. Now, check out the graph below (based on the datasheet here). I see four things when I look at this model:

- Steppe_MLBA and Steppe_EMBA are different because the former show excess Central European Middle Neolithic (Central_MN) affinity, and thus cluster at the top of the graph and above the line of best fit, while the latter show excess Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (Caucasus_HG) affinity, and so cluster at the top of the graph but below the line of best fit
- Indo-Aryan-speaking South Asians fall below the line of best fit, which suggests that they don't have much, if any, Central_MN ancestry, so they're probably largely of Steppe_EMBA origin (though their Iran Neolithic-related farmer ancestry might be skewing things to some extent here, because it's more closely related to Caucasus_HG than to Central_MN)
- Both the ancient and most modern-day Eastern Iranian-speakers (Sarmatians and Pamir Tajiks, respectively) more or less hug the line of best fit, suggesting that they're a mixture of Steppe_MLBA and Steppe_EMBA
- all of the Scythians fall above the line of best fit, suggesting that their steppe ancestry largely derives from Steppe_MLBA.

As per point 2, it's possible that the outcomes for the South and also Central Asians are skewed by their Iran Neolithic-related farmer ancestry, but this shouldn't be much of an issue for the eastern Scythians, and if it is, then in fact their Central_MN/Steppe_MLBA affinity is being underestimated here.
Moreover, word around the campfire is that the R1a-Z93 in the eastern Scythian bam files is of the same type as in the Sintashta samples (Z2124+). Not 100% sure if that's true, but it might well be, because it lines up very nicely with the above graph.
Citation...
Unterländer et al., Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 14615 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms14615

I think Indo Iranians (probably) do not come from Yamna at least according to all the evidence that we have so far. If it appears the Indo-Iranians have Yamna ancestry than it just means that Yamna probably have no descendants and Yamna like ancestry comes from a pre-Yamna population/populations. The Yamna studied all had a almost dead type of R1b (+ one has I) FROM TWO SITES so no need to assume that they are the ancestors of most R1a or even R1b although that is more likely albeit still unlikely. I am excited about when the big paper come out and if they prove I am wrong than that is great but I think they will probably prove I am right as Yamaha will lack the y-lineages ancestral to pre R1a and probably have some poorly resolved autosomial component so everyone will just ignore the y-lineages and say that per the autosomial component they are the ancestors of most R1. Maybe the Yamna had the types of R1a and R1b ancestral to all nowadays but according to the current evidence I think this is highly unlikely. I cant wait to find out the truth :)

Hehehe :) So David Wesolowski , you are saying Catacomb now as Aryan?. Well It didn't even touch Asia BUT read this :

Grigoryev's (1998) version of the Armenian hypothesis connects Catacomb culture with Indo-Aryans, because catacomb burial ritual had roots in South-Western Turkmenistan from the early 4th millennium (Parkhai cemetery). The same opinion is supported by Leo Klejn in his various publications.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacomb_culture#Language

The singleton Catacomb sample we have, Ulan IV RISE552, is typical of Steppe_EMBA, just with a higher ratio of CHG, and that's why he's such a good fit for South Asians.

There's nothing suggesting that he was or his ancestors were from anywhere near Turkmenistan.

He belongs to Y-HG I2a2, but if it turns out that similar Catacomb samples belong to Z645 and Z93, then Catacomb will be a good option for a steppe proto-Aryan culture.

Archeology will have to adapt to this new information. I read somewhere recently that Leo Klejn was whining about the latest ancient DNA results, because they didn't match his expectations. But he didn't have a good argument against them. Sort of like Nirjhar.

As I understand, Archaeology is so far more or less within the findings . Archaeology is not something that you can just vapor away , the Kurgan Hypothesis is itself based on some archaeological interpretations . So You must need archaeology taken into account , without any prior assumptions , Mallory has recently shown that .

By interesting, its always the discussion of different possibilities! , with some data provided by scholars , your suggestion has no archaeological background , mine does ,as I have highlighted !.

@MaxT" Indo-Aryans affinity towards Steppe_EMBA is not surprising considering they were first wave of Indo-Iranian migrations to South Asia and Anatolia and were probably more EMBA shifted. "

Most linguistic models have the Anatolians first to leave and the indo-iranianas/aryans as the last to leave.So its not quite what you just said. Personally, I don't think such models are cast in stone. But consensus is not the norm in linguistics so perhaps the fact that most agree on this aspect may hold some weight.

The reason that Scythians fall above the trend line is the East Asian component of their ancestry. Caucasus_HG is more basal than Central_MN and the D statistics will be affected by this. I believe the Reich Lab finding that Scythians are better modeled as Steppe_EMBA + East Eurasian.

Davidski claimed that Rakhigarhi was an eneolithic culture. Not so. The people were expert in using bronze even in the making of fine art and not just in utilitarian objects. For example, see the following from the Harappan site of Mohenjo-daro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Girl_(Mohenjo-daro)

Davidski also wrote that he was aware of aDNA results from Rakhigarhi and that they should significant ASI. This would not at all be unexpected since Rakhigarhi is the easternmost part of the Harappan civilization. The people there surely mixed with the people of the Gangetic plain and had some ASI. But people further west in what is now Pakistan would have had much less ASI. Today, there is a lot of ASI in Pakistan. For example Punjabi_Lahore has more ASI than Brahmin_UP. But this happened after the Islamic domination of the Subcontinent in the late thirteenth century after which large numbers of high-ASI slaves were transported to what is now Pakistan. An analogous phenomenon occurred in North Africa with sub-Saharan slaves being transported north across the Sahara after the coming of Islam.

I personally think that Catacomb is more related to Proto-Greek and some Paleo-Balkan languages. This languages arrived rather late in the balkan and had some affinities with Indo-Iranian despite being originally spoken by R1b-rich people. Abashevo is in my opinion Proto-Indo-Aryan and that would also explain why some Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic languages are closer to Indo-Aryan than to Iranic. Abashevo originated from contacts between Fatayanovo/Balanovo and Catacomb/Poltavka. Indo-Iranians were very much influenced by Yamnaya-derived cultures of the steppe and that is the reason why so many archaeologists assumed that they originate from Yamnaya but the lack of R1a make this unlikely. Fatayanovo had links with the Midddle Dnepr culture from where Proto-Indo-Iranians maybe got their EEF admixture.http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ou1j13&s=6

1) The founding roots of 90% of the world's Male and Female lineages.2) Archaeological evidence from Stone Age to the birth of much advanced Neolithic civilization.

These evidences are radiating out from South Asia towards other regions.

You are only deluding your self by talking about Aryan Invasion from the Steppe, They were only coming home to their roots, what they actually invaded from the steppe was the regions further west which were mostly populated by cave dwelling hunter gatherers.

@Balaji they were no ASI rich slaves. Populations in the Indus Gangetic plains always had a good amount of ASI. Yes you are right those samples are not Eneolithic, they are largely early Bronze Age, Eneolithic would be the Merhgarh culture centered in Balochistan and SW Pakistan. I think getting samples from Pakistan would be more beneficial , as the IVC and proto IVC sites are there. The spread of rice farming would have definitely dumped more ASI as it was brought by Austroasiatic farmers, those Rakhigarhi sites indicate largely rice farming as well as wheat.Wheat Farming was brought by Neolithic Iranians. PJL Lahore has more ASI because it is from a Tribal/Dalit, in fact most of the sample of PJL are from Dalit/Tribal.

Eastern Scythians would have been like Turkic groups. Western Scythiansare very much Androvono like but with some minor Asiatic admixture ,but based of Chinese descriptions , they resemble NE Europeans.

Kalash and Greeks are not related, Kalash have more steppe ancestry than Greeks. While Greeks are predominantly EEF. Neither did Alexander the Great or his army leave any genetic contribution in that region.

"A NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE END OF THE OXUS CIVILIZATION (SOUTHERN CENTRAL ASIA, CA. 1750-1500/1400 BCE): OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE SOCIETY " Lunea.

No direct transplant of steppe cultures for sure, but definitely a large ideological shift in material culture; with notable impact of Andronovo communities becoming palpable, especially in the realm of metalwork.

Anyone know where Grigoryev got his early 4th millennium date for Parkhai II? He gives no reference for it and everyone else (like, the actual excavator) says mid- or first half of *3rd* millennium BC.